is to have some facts ready at your disposal… That is have some specific examples where to send them to find the information to support your case, if you have these sources on the cuff, you will blank them. Also, if they resort to name calling, then there really is not need to engage them any further other than the question back to them, How So or where did you get that information from? The especially hate when you can use the argument of “Where in the U.S. Constituion do we find evidence that supports a Federal Government that is engaging in the activities it has been doing for the last years. Remember, Bush is also guilty for supporting huge new entitlement programs.

The name callers are only resoting to that because you have incited their emotion and no real good argument shall come once the Lib goes into venom mode.

You can agree with a statement, no problem: but you don’t let a statement that needs to be challenged pass unchallenged. Interrupt them. Don’t worry about looking rude by doing it: they were being rude first by mis-characterizing you and yours. Don’t let them change the subject, don’t let them say that we should move past the contention, don’t agree to disagree: if they whine, tell them that you’re not there to be their friend. Make ‘em pay for every inch of ground.

We say no to Higher taxes..

we say no to Appeasement foriegn policy…

we say no to Socialized health care…

and we say no to Destructive social agendas.

Is the Progressves standard ‘debate’ tactic.
They will not debate the facts of issues, dispite always calling for a debate on the issues.
If you disagree with Dear Leader ZerO, you are a racist.
If you disagree with abortion, you are a misogynist.
If you disagree with gay marriage, you are a religious zealot.
It goes on and on. They are the standard response the Progressive Leadership has brain washed into their minions. The minions do not actually have an arguement based on issues, facts, or data to to any disagreements. This is why you get the kind of debate from them you typically encounter, name calling and bad words. They have no other recourse, they are not actually educated in the issues fundementals.

“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”

Surprisingly, I am reminded more and more of the little Shut Up sketch someone posted front page a few days ago.

… or Rush.

Because they are sooooooo smooth and keep it together at all times.

But Moe has it in a nutshell.

Over the past few years, seeing Republicans brought down by
“controversies” over things deliberately taken out of context, misinterpreted or just plain manufactured by Leftists and the MSM (but I repeat myself), or seeing reasonable conservative opinion dismissed as “extremist” on the basis of the caricature liberals have in their heads about Conservatives before even so much as a proper hearing, I have come to the conclusion that the terms of the debate have got to change.

As Moe put it, challenge them from premise onward, don’t allow them to change the subject, force them to concede or don’t move forward, mock them when they descend to name-calling, refuse to apologize for offending their delicate sensibilities, attack their ideas without mercy, etc.

Make them hurt and make them pay.

When arguing with a liberal keep in mind that you will never change their mind. Your target is not really the liberal with whom you are arguing, but the swing voters who are listening to your conversation.

This is also why Moe’s answer is so important. While swing voters are not necessarily the brightest bunch, they do have a fairly good bs detector. The typical swing voter will know you are making an honest attempt while the liberal is being disrespectful. This is also why it is important to keep your cool. The first one in the argument to loose their cool also looses the swing voter.